The logic at the end of TailDuplicate seems dead - can we remove it?

[David Blaikie via llvm-commits]

If you want to be defensive, youc ould turn the whole loop into an
assert(any_of(...)) - that way we'll find it if the situation comes up for
anyone doing a +Asserts build, and we can get a test case and from
there/decide if we need the functionality, etc.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Justin Bogner via llvm-commits <
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> There's some code near the end of TailDuplicate to handle "the nasty
> case in that we duplicated a block that is part of a loop into some but
> not all of its predecessors."
>
> I noticed that this isn't covered by our existing tests and spent some
> time trying to come up with an example it actually hits. I tried hand
> rolling something based on the explanation in the comment, but couldn't
> get anything that didn't abort tail duplication earlier for one reason
> or another.
>
> Then, I applied the attached patch (with tail-dup-size cranked up so
> this would fire more) and ran a bootstrap of clang and the nightly test
> suite - the assert was never hit.
>
> I suspect that things have changed and the situation this code handles
> can't happen anymore. Should we remove it?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160404/78f86081/attachment.html>